Paritosh Kumar Singh Alias Diwakar Choudhary vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of non-furnishing of a final report. The Court reasoned that authorized officers under the CGST Act, such as the Senior Intelligence Officer, are not police officers and therefore cannot submit a final report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Instead, they can only file a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. The Court referred to the judgment in Raja Ram Jaiswal's case and the Telangana High Court's decision in P.V. Ramana Reddy, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to support the proposition that officers authorized to arrest under the CGST Act are not police officers. Furthermore, the Court found that the complaint was filed on March 25, 2021, which is within 60 days of the petitioners' arrest on January 25, 2021. Therefore, as the complaint was filed within the prescribed time for filing a complaint to determine entitlement to default bail, the petitioners were not entitled to default bail on this count. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners were arrested on January 25, 2021, for alleged violations of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically Sections 132(1)(b) and (c). They were remanded to judicial custody. A complaint was filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST, on March 25, 2021. The petitioners applied for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, arguing that a charge-sheet had not been filed within the stipulated 60 days. The Magistrate rejected their application on May 12, 2021. A criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge also failed on June 26, 2021. The petitioners then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging these orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the complaint filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. is a valid substitute for a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of calculating the period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., considering that officers under the CGST Act are not police officers? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that since the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act carry a maximum punishment of 5 years, they are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if a charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days. They contended that the complaint filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, who is not a police officer, is not equivalent to a charge-sheet and that the authorities are obligated to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They relied on the definitions of 'cognizable offence', 'complaint', 'inquiry', and 'investigation' under the Cr.P.C. and argued that the procedure followed was void ab initio. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the complaint was filed within 60 days of the arrest, thus disentitling the petitioners to default bail. They relied on legal precedents establishing that authorized officers under the CGST Act can only file a complaint, not a final report, as they are not police officers.